The legal point established is that unregistered sale deed and rent receipts are inadmissible as evidence, and adverse possession cannot be claimed without proving continuous possession.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Parichha, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by Learned District Judge, Khurda in Title Appeal No. 43 of 1998 confirming the Judgment and decree of Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in Title Suit No. 168 of 1990.

2. The Appellant, as Plaintiff, brought the above noted Title Suit for declaration of his right, title, interest, confirmation of possession over the suit land and in the alternative for restoration of possession on the same, if found dispossessed in the mean time. He also prayed for a declaration that he has right title over the suit land by adverse possession and for an injunction restraining the Defendant-Respondent from entering into the suit land and interfering with his possession. The case of the Plaintiff in brief was that the suit land measuring AC. 13.880 decimals appertaining to Plot No. 121/1277, Khata No. 203 in Mouza - Kantabada originally belonged to one Braja Bhukan Lal, who died leaving his three sons, namely Ramlal, Jagannath and Chaitan. Jagannath died leaving behind his widow Manati and a minor daughter Bijayalaxmi ' Laxmi. These legal heirs sold the suit land along with other lands to the Plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 13.9.1966, Ext.1 for a consideration of Rs. 6,500/- and delivered possession thereof. The Plaintiff put green fence around the suit land and planted eucalyptus trees. He got this land mutated in his name in Mutation Case No. 19 of 1984. The Defendant out of jealousy and ill motive threatened to cut down eucalyptus trees and dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit land and initiated a proceeding u/s 144, Cr. P.C., vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 351 of 1990. In that case Learned Executive Magistrate prohibited both parties from entering upon the suit land. But the Defendant in violation of such prohibitory order constructed a hut on the suit land over an area of 25' x 22' compelling the Plaintiff thereby to file the suit asking for the above noted reliefs.

3. Defendant in his written statement traversed the pleading of the Plaintiff claiming, inter alia, that Braja Bhakunlal and Raghu Nandan Prasad were the two sons of Saluk Chand. These two brothers purchased suit land along with the other lands from Damodar Maharana vide registered sale deed No. 2862 dated 5.6.1931 (Ext. H) and took over possession of the same. In the year 1939 Raghunandan and Braja Bhakunlal effected partition by metes and bounds under a registered partition deed dated 19.07.1939, (Ext.J.), wherein the suit land fell to the share of Raghunandan Prasad, the father of the Defendant. Raghunandan accordingly possessed the suit land exclusively till his death and after him the Defendant as his sole heir continued in khas possession of the suit land residing thereon with his family and raising eucalyptus plantation etc. The Defendant remained absent from kantabada for a long period and during his long absence, the heirs of Braja Bhakunlal by playing fraud and suppressing notice clandestinely recorded their names in respect of the suit land in the records of 1962 Settlement and then sold Ac. 65. 215 decimals of land including the suit land surreptitiously to the Plaintiff and he (Defendant) in good faith attested the sale deed without knowing the contents thereof. After obtaining the sale deed the Plaintiff tried to forcibly dispossess the Defendant for which he (Defendant) initiated proceeding u/s 144, Cr.P.C., wherein the Plaintiff filed show cause admitting that he is not aware if the suit land belongs to the Defendant. Learned Executing Magistrate converted that proceeding into one u/s 145, Cr.P.C. and finally declared possession of the Defendant, vide order Ext.D. It was further pleaded that Defendant filed appeal against the order of the Revenue Officer passed in Mutation Case No. 19 of 1984 and the Sub-Collector in his Order Dated 18.5.1992, (Ext. G) in Mutation Appeal No:29 of 1990 set aside the order of the Tahasildar passed in Mutation Case N